Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Jan 2022 15:56:42 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/22] KVM: x86: Drop unnecessary and confusing KVM_X86_OP_NULL macro | From | Paolo Bonzini <> |
| |
On 1/28/22 16:42, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 1/28/22 01:51, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>> Drop KVM_X86_OP_NULL, which is superfluous and confusing. The macro is >>> just a "pass-through" to KVM_X86_OP; it was added with the intent of >>> actually using it in the future, but that obviously never happened. The >>> name is confusing because its intended use was to provide a way for >>> vendor implementations to specify a NULL pointer, and even if it were >>> used, wouldn't necessarily be synonymous with declaring a kvm_x86_op as >>> DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL. >>> >>> Lastly, actually using KVM_X86_OP_NULL as intended isn't a maintanable >>> approach, e.g. bleeds vendor details into common x86 code, and would >>> either be prone to bit rot or would require modifying common x86 code >>> when modifying a vendor implementation. >> >> I have some patches that redefine KVM_X86_OP_NULL as "must be used with >> static_call_cond". That's a more interesting definition, as it can be used >> to WARN if KVM_X86_OP is used with a NULL function pointer. > > I'm skeptical that will actually work well and be maintainble. E.g. sync_pir_to_ir() > must be explicitly check for NULL in apic_has_interrupt_for_ppr(), forcing that path > to do static_call_cond() will be odd. Ditto for ops that are wired up to ioctl()s, > e.g. the confidential VM stuff, and for ops that are guarded by other stuff, e.g. the > hypervisor timer. > > Actually, it won't just be odd, it will be impossible to disallow NULL a pointer > for KVM_X86_OP and require static_call_cond() for KVM_X86_OP_NULL. static_call_cond() > forces the return to "void", so any path that returns a value needs to be manually > guarded and can't use static_call_cond(), e.g.
You're right and I should have looked up the series instead of going by memory. What I did was mostly WARNing on KVM_X86_OP that sets NULL, as non-NULL ops are the common case. I also added KVM_X86_OP_RET0 to remove some checks on kvm_x86_ops for ops that return a value.
All in all I totally agree with patches 2-11 and will apply them (patch 2 to 5.17 even, as a prerequisite to fix the AVIC race). Several of patches 13-21 are also mostly useful as it clarifies the code, and the others I guess are okay in the context of a coherent series though probably they would have been rejected as one-offs. However, patches 12 and 22 are unnecessary uses of the C preprocessor in my opinion.
Paolo
| |